About

About Rob Painter:

With all the scams and cons out there, how do I know Rob Painter is who he says he is, or if he is effective as he claims to be?

What types of references do I have serving a an expert witness for 20 years in our court system across the nation an a consultant for law firms? I have many, but for the sake of expediency, I am supplying one legal reference letter at this time, and will add many more.

How effective am I when representing clients consulting for a SIU investigation preparing clients for interviews, Examination Under Oaths, and refuting denied auto theft claims? References from the last year and a little more. I have been doing investigation claims consulting for the last 8 years as one of the services I offer. It is very common to get a claim settled that was earmarked for denial.

What has to be realized is that Rob Painter has devoted the last 27 years of working with and training with Special Investigations Units as it relates to auto theft claims. In fact, at one time, I sat at a round table assisting in-house attorneys determining as to which auto theft claims should and should not be paid.

Rob’s experience is very stark as it relates to auto theft with 37 years directly and indirectly involved with auto theft, 24 years in automotive forensics.

Unlike some of the greatest trial attorneys out there, my focus has always been on auto theft, automotive defects and vehicle fire forensic analysis. Nothing else! Attorneys for the most part know nothing about auto theft, how vehicles are stolen, the thought process of what it is to be a car thief, much less the process of forensic locksmithing and determining as to how the reported stolen vehicle was last driven. They don’t have the knowledge or experience opposing the insurance company’s Certified Forensic Locksmith (CFL) or where their methodology is inept. All attorneys see is an expert offering conclusions as to the vehicle being last driven with a key of the proper type under the “forensic” badge. When serving as a consultant/expert witness for attorneys, I have had many very memorable experiences in which the plaintiff attorney representing the insured was questioning the innocense of their client. I will briefly give such an example:

The CFL was assigned to examine a reported stolen and recovered burned Chevrolet Tahoe SUV. The CFL explained his procedures rather vivdly! Examination of the ignition and steering column netted this statemnt. “There was no blunt force tramua oberved to the steering column or ignition. Although this is a very colorful description, the words were intentionally installed in the report to make it appear as though the steering column had no force damage applied to it. It is my opinion that this statement was installed in the report to make it appear as though we were dealing with a true forensic expert that possibly was akin to a coroner or a medical examiner. Blunt force tramua is something commonly used to describe injuries to a human being, not to a vehicle!

The client attorney, the investigator and the CFL all met at an auto auction where the vehicle was located. The CFLhad left comments about the condition about the ignition lock cylinder wafers (tumblers). I requested the use of the CFL’s microscope, so that I could replicated his lighting, his magnifications with his microscope. He flat out said no, and I should be carrying my own. The problem using my equipment is that it was not exactly the same and my results my differ.

the client attorney and I went to the vehicle. I reviewed the report while at the vehicle. The report stated the vehicle indicated no signs of stripping, giving the impression that components of value were not missing. I looked inside the vehicle from the passenger door glass opening. As I was looking, strangely there were not large amounts of fire debris on the floors. Another mind notation was there were no steel seat frames. Although the foam/leather or cloth will be erradicated in a vehicle fire, the steel seat frames never melt or subject of a vehicle fire. What this told me was this vehicle had in fact been stripped of valuable components! This vehicle had no interior when burned!

I brought this to the attention of my client attorney. All his concerns about forensics being applied to the vehicle were gone the minute explained the vehicle had in fact been stripped. By noon the next day the insurance company had settled the claim!

He knows of all the national insurance certified forensic locksmiths (CFLs) that serve as purported experts, with their severely flawed methodology who’s conclusions are rarely exacting but are deliberately meant to appear that way to any one that is aware of the report content.

Rob is not an attorney and does not claim to know the law, however Power of Attorney gives him great latitude in the court system. He combines his knowledge of forensics with federal rules of Chain of custody and Rules of evidence 702 defining the requirements of an expert witness to refute the forensic locksmith’s flawed opinions and conclusions when that situation exists (Quite commonly) from a perspective that an attorney simply rarely does because of deliberate confusion and deceit from the insurance compensated forensic experts.

Does Rob Painter only serve insureds?

No. Rob will serve anyone looking for the truth. In fact, May of 2014 he put on a presentation on auto theft for an insurance carrier. He does not pick sides, unlike that of the insurance forensic locksmith that will commonly work only for the carriers and prosecution. Because of his ability to be unbiased and objective, a Cook County (Chicago) judge appointed Rob to be an umpire in a dispute between two parties essentially serving as a judge in the case.

Linkedin is a professional database and is the list professionals want to be on. Rob has close to 3,000 contacts on this site from Insurance Personnel, Attorneys, Sheriffs, Police Chiefs, Private Investigators, Fire Investigators, State Patrols, Fire Chief’s, ICE, Homeland Security, ATF, DEA, and about any other Federal acronym. What is even more important is to scroll down the page and review Rob’s endorsements from other professionals. There are hundreds of them!

That is quite stunning, but there is much more to Rob Painter. When demanded by a court to appear in another state, the City of San Francisco sent a letter stating Rob Painter would not be available until after he completed his task in a homicide investigation!

Rob has many referral letters from over the years from client lawyers that were very impressed with his astute knowledge. He has a list of attorneys he served and will supply on demand.

As a very effective rebuttal expert against forensic locksmiths serving as expert witnesses for insurance companies claiming by inference, the insured had committed fraud, claiming the last key used in the reported stolen vehicle was one of the “proper type” Rob served as a severe threat to their business. Rob is the only one in this field that actually had a book entitled “The Book” compiled on him, to be used as credibility attacks on him by opposing attorneys. It took 15 years to compile this book!

Here is some food for thought: If Rob Painter was not a threat to the industry, why is he the only one in the industry that had such a book compiled? Obviously, the threat was worth the time and expense to compile this book!

How scared are the insurance defense teams of Rob?

Rob is the only expert in his field that was subject to a 150 page motion to exclude in the New Orleans Federal case in April 2012 Johnson v State Farm. Here State Farm defense minimized Rob’s background and elevated their expert Herb Miller’s background, stating that all of Rob’s background was irrelevant to the case. Of course State Farm Defense forgot t mention the findings of a Federal judge in Dallas in 2009 where the judge qualified Rob as having nearly two decades of experience as an automotive forensic examiner. Whoops!

The judge allowed Rob to testify in the trial with skepticism. (No wonder)

In June of 2012 in the Nevada case Dane v. Geico, Rob was deposed. He was informed that there was already a motion to exclude him as an expert witness before the deposition! This was unheard of, because that is the purpose of a deposition to get information to be used to attack the credibility of the expert. Interestingly enough, the motion was based on the decision of the federal judge in Johnson’s case the month before, where Rob was allowed to testify!

There was a supplemental motion to exclude after Rob’s deposition! Another precedent in this field and never heard of! In Nevada, requirements for expert qualification are only that the expert had to have qualified before in another court! Rob had qualified as an expert in 19 state courts and Federal court numerous times on both civil and criminal arenas! The opposing expert Robert Mangine, was commonly on the losing side in the same areas as the Dane case!

Another precedent! Rob was mentioned in an emergency motion of mandamus to the Nevada Supreme court, stating the judge had erred in her decision not to qualify Rob as an expert in forensics, and auto theft. In fact, in January 2013 the judge was shown as erratic, when she asked if a locksmith had ever qualified as an expert in court before. His answer was no, but she qualified him anyway.

Of course none of this had nothing to do with the judge’s political PAC fund which was funded by insurance companies.

The moral to this story about Rob, is that if there is fear of an expert and his capabilities, the court system is used to destroy that expert by all means possible!

So, if any attorney is concerned, it is easily proven that the Las Vegas disqualification was done by a biased judge who should have recused herself in 2012. Here is the 2013 rebuttal to the bogus motion to exclude, in yet another federal court. This was a conserted effort by State Farm and Geico defense to put me out of business. It is impressive that after 18 years they conspired so greatly. Scared of little ole’ me? Wow!

Because of this fear of Rob and all stops were pulled out by a major carrier’s defense team to destroy him personally and professionally colluding with their crooked forensic locksmith experts, Rob has walked in the shoes of an insured investigated and denied on their theft claim!

He was falsely accused based on an anonymous letter to the Feds, as it related to his testimony in which he was representing an insured weeks before. The attorney tried twice to get Rob excluded as an expert in that case and twice the judge said no! The bogus Federal investigation stole 12 months out of Rob’s and his ex-wife’s life for a case that was closed after Rob spent 15 minutes in a deposition with the Department of Justice!

Rob is no longer serving as an expert witness, because these cases negate the physical evidence and the insurance expert’s conclusions on a reported stolen vehicle as to how it was last driven. Serving as an expert witness turns the case into a side show about a referendum on Rob.

Rob Now serves attorneys as an un-named consultant capable of causing any insurance forensic expert to self-impeach!

Representing his clients under Power of Attorney, Rob has the reputation at a corporate level to be feared. Very few attorneys have this reputation in an auto theft claims investigation or denial! Power of Attorney in most cases give Rob the ability to hammer the carrier into submission, because it would not look very good for a non-attorney to prevail on the facts over a seasoned defense team!

Rob serving as the only criminal defense and plaintiff expert has commonly been the reason his side prevailed. Rob has gotten cops wrongly accused their jobs back! Years ago, in a high profile case, the defense attorney and Rob were an unstoppable team, getting their client (a cop) acquitted, in which he had been accused of insurance fraud and his key being the last key used in the ignition.

Rob has far too many of successes to list on a web page, but if you need a winner to represent you when the deck is stacked deliberately against the insured to enhance the carrier’s bottom line, there is only one name you should consider and that is Rob Painter.

One additional note: Even though Rob Painter does not do expert witness services any longer, the firm A&R Forensics has such associates available, who have been trained by Rob.

Please understand Rob Painter has served as an expert witness for some outstanding plaintiff attorneys over the last 2 decades and will continue to do so, not as an expert witness, but as an un-named consultant. Rob Painter has the reputation known at a corporate level of State Farm, Progressive, Geico, Allstate and Farmers as well as other companies. Many corporate defense teams representing State Farm have gone to great effort to put me out of business colluding with their forensic experts. In fact, Rob Painter is the only one in the field that was kicked out of the Certified Forensic Locksmith defunct organization IAIL in 2006 without notice, during the weekend before he was to testify on Monday morning conveniently. Rob Painter is the only one in the field that had a book compiled on him after 15 years. It was released when he took a case against one specific forensic locksmith. The time, the expense tells one that there is true fear that he can expose the forensic locksmith experts. Either Rob Painter is that good that he can expose the forensic locksmiths as the Charlatans they are, or Rob Painter is unethical or incompetent as charged. The choice is use to form an opinion, but keep this in mind: Rob Painter’s efforts have forced settlement numerous times and his prevailing side record is awesome and speaks for itself! In fact to prove the fact insurance companies collude in an effort to stop Rob Painter: In the 150 page motion to exclude presented to the federal judge in a New Orleans case Johnson v State Farm in May of 2012, State Farm defense must have forgotten to cite the 2009 ruling from a federal judge in Nunn v State Farm, that Rob Painter had almost two decades of being an automotive forensic examiner. Yet, it was more important to elevate their expert to Rob Painter’s stature even though he was only a mere locksmith with some fire experience. Because of this misinformation, the judge would let Rob Painter testify with skepticism. Of course the judge would be skeptical when not given the full information about Rob Painter. The next month (June 2012) a precedent was set in the forensic locksmith field. In Dane v Geico (Nevada) a motion to exclude was submitted before Painter’s deposition based on the federal case the month before in which Rob Painter was allowed to testify! Secondly, Painter was supposed to receive the deposition transcript to fill in information about a business he closed 12 years earlier. Painter, no matter how hard he tried never received that deposition. In another precedent, a supplemental motion to exclude was offered after Painter’s deposition. The very interesting fact is that for a decade Painter had successful opposed Geico’s expert Robert Mangine on the identical same subjects! Another very interesting fact was that the judge’s political PAC fund was supported by insurance companies. Another precedent! An emergency motion of Mandamus was submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court stating that the judge had erred on her ruling qualifying Painter as an expert. In the State of Nevada the only requirement for qualifying as an expert is to have qualified in any other court. Painter has qualified in 19 states and in federal court numerous times. More interesting was that during the 2013 trial, the same judge qualified a locksmith as an expert who had never been qualified, again illustrating her erratic behavior on the qualification of experts. All this to stop Painter, plus much much more! Is Rob Painter a severe threat to insurance companies investigating auto theft claims and their constant use of their forensic locksmith? You bet! They should be. Painter can take their case apart when predicated on a fraud. Painter has three major parts to his personality that are reflected in these cases. Passion, Honesty, and Honor. Painter can fight these claims investigation representing his clients under Power of Attorney or in the case of an attorney an un-named consultant that can destroy the forensic locksmith conclusion, leaving the question; why wasn’t the claim paid? (Bad Faith) Painter is a bad ass! Defense attorneys have convoluted facts about Painter and that is no longer happening. He is there to assist and guide insureds through a claim. Even in the face of denial, because Painter scripted his clients appropriately for their EUO, the carrier paid the claim! Does the plaintiff attorney have a reputation on a corporate level with these carriers? Most likely not. Painter does!